Anti Japan protests in your town? 钓鱼岛

[studychinese]

I linked the story, it is in Japanese.

If there was harassment, would it be reported in the Chinese media? Do I even have to ask that question?

Anyway, even if the Senkaku Islands do rightfully belong to China, it doesn't excuse the actions of the rioters, burning buildings, looting, and beating people up.

[Kenny同志]

If there was harassment, would it be reported in the Chinese media? Do I even have to ask that question?

No, it wouldn’t but I need evidence to know whether the report is true.

Anyway, even if the Senkaku Islands do rightfully belong to China, it doesn't excuse the actions of the rioters, burning buildings, looting, and beating people up.

Sure, such actions are illegal no matter what. If my memory serves me right, this would be the third time that I state such actions are illegal.

[tokyo_girl]

Did you know that the Chinese government has been trying to buy the Senkaku islands from it's private owners for the last 30 years? The owners faced 30 years worth of harassment and death threats, including harassment of the owners elementary school son.That is the reason that they had to sell to a government entity, because the harassment had become too much.

http://zasshi.news.y...00301-jisin-pol

I wouldn't believe anything Shintaro Ishihara said about the Senkaku unless I heard it verified by someone more moderate in their views. The current flare up is squarely his fault. It seems like a very murky deal that the Kuriharas have been paid out by the Japanese tax payer. I haven't read up on them, but I assume they are right winger friends of Ishihara. The Kuriharas would not have been able to sell the island to China without the approval of the Japanese government as it entails sea territory as well.

Sure, such actions are illegal no matter what. If my memory serves me right, this would be the third time that I state such actions are illegal.

I think this was the point of the thread - the fact that they occurred at all suggests strongly that they were either permitted or encouraged at a government level. It is an unfortunate way to try and solve international issues.

[Steingletscher]

Exercising sovereignty over an area is a different thing to knowing of an areas' existence.

I don't have an indepth knowledge about 天下, which I take is what the Chinese used in the past to say that the islands are theirs even though it was never occupied, but I'm assuming it's notion of sovereignty is much different from the modern conception; and 天下 only matters now in historical arguments, which are being used now.

The only thing I have to say is if China is the only country that sees such deals as illegal, though they might be right, how much does it matter?

When the Big Brother (think about what it means - its allies, media, etc.) is on Japan's side, it really doesn't matter.

I should have been more forward in what I was implying. Who is going to enforce international law and how much does it matter if it isn't? I'm not saying it is America's job, but even if they do take up the role, do they have the final say? I have no intention to say Japan is right in owning the islands simply because America believes so, all I want to point towards is towards the tricker subject of international law (especially one where its subjects are not underneath a large organization but rather where the laws have been created among more-or-less independent equals without an explicit enforcer [though it may be possible that an enforcer is not necessary to make a law valid or not]). Feel free to ignore the tangent if you want, it simply sparked my curiosity and questioning.

[tokyo_girl]

And the Japanese LDP have elected a hawkish nationalist to the leadership today...

Shinzo Abe who is a shrine visitor.

To have elected someone moderate would have been seen as weakness.

It's a great great pity.

[gato]

I think this was the point of the thread - the fact that they occurred at all suggests strongly that they were either permitted or encouraged at a government level. It is an unfortunate way to try and solve international issues.

I think we have unanimous agreement on this board that the violence was wrong -- though there is disagreement on whether the violent actions of some should delegitimize all of the protests -- so it's safe to move on to the historical, legal, and political questions.

[tokyo_girl]

so it's safe to move on to the historical, legal, and political questions.

Well put. Is there any consensus on whether the protests were permitted or encouraged by government?

And if there is, how this should be understood?

[gato]

The protests were obviously permitted by the government because the government would have shut them down.

They were probably also encouraged by government via the media, but there is enough strong feelings at the grassroots level on this issue that protests would have happened without any promotion by the government.

[Kenny同志]

Also note that surpressing the protests would have been perceived as betrayal to the nation.

[tokyo_girl]

Ok, so there is consensus on the fact that the government permit and probably encouraged the protests - the China daily accounts certainly legitimised them. (I am reading in English not in Chinese.)

So what is the primary motivation of government to permit them? (which may differ from the protesters reasons to protest)

mostly domestic eg

- to enable free expression of popular sentiment - as kenny suggests to avoid being seen as betrayers of the nation (that would be the stance of quite a weak government though, I am not sure the motivation was primarily defensive.) or

- to distract from other issues domestically

mostly aimed at Japan

- to show displeasure with the actions of the Japanese govt or

- to show that Japan is dependent on the economic power of China

aimed at the international audience

- to increase sympathy for the Chinese position vis a vis Japan

- to warn of the implications of upsetting the chinese govt (if this is a factor I don't think it is likely to be the major influencer)

A combination? (most likely but with what balance)

Other factors I haven't considered.

I have affection for both China and Japan, and have very good friends in both countries. It seems from here, reading various international takes on it, that the Chinese govt., by encouraging hate speak which has led to violence, has been really irresponsible, and probably criminal. I don't put the blame entirely in China's court at all, were it not for Ishihara and his antics pushing the issue, it may not have come to a head like this.

Just wondering how others see the motivation.

(A further pity on the Japanese domestic front is the cancellation of the Chinatown festival in Yokohama...)

[gato]

If the Chinese government can be called "criminal" because it encouraged or permitted the protests (but not the violence), then shouldn't the Japanese government also be called "criminal" for taking the action that invites the protests? That leap of logic seems a bit far-fetched.

Let's also focus on the Japanese motivation in this case. Putting all the focus on China is not going to shed much light on the dispute. So how much support is there for Ishihara's right-wing nationalism? He has been elected to 3 or 4 consecutive terms as Tokyo's governor, from what I read.

[Outofin]

Ok, so there is consensus on the fact that the government permit and probably encouraged the protests

Disagreed. There are numerous anti-government protests all the time and the government failed to shut them down. I wouldn't be surprised if the government turns a blind eye on the protests because "oh well, they're even not protesting us this time", but even if they want to maintain order, they often fail or incapable of doing so. And when you say the government, better to keep it in mind that there are many layers of people that can make a difference. Would a policeman who himself is so disgusted by Japan's actions carry out his job dutifully? China is not a mature country in many ways.

What you said about the government's motivations could be true or false, though they barely matter. The lesson is that, the 2 countries should have better routine communications. Don't make unilateral decisions. Talk to China before making next move. I heard Tokyo is sending a special envoy to Beijing, which is a good first step. Be cautious optimistic.

[tokyo_girl]

I realise government is multi layered, but attacks on embassies and consulates are obviously national level matters.

What you said about the government's motivations could be true or false, though they barely matter.

This is quite an astonishing thing to hear. The motivations on both sides are critical to understanding and resolving differences. In the case of Japan, Ishihara's motives are quite clearly to assert himself, to create distractions and problems for the ruling DPJ, and to advance a nationalist cause that he believes in. His views largely align with, though are more extreme than Shinzo Abe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/japans-main-opposition-party-to-elect-new-leader-setting-sights-on-winning-next-election/2012/09/25/ddc7563c-078c-11e2-9eea-333857f6a7bd_story.html

Although the DPJ have nationalised the islands, their motivation, as I see it, is largely to avert more trouble by Ishihara. They can't stop him spouting his nonsense, but if the national govt. owns it, Tokyo govt. can't buy it (which was their plan.)

Unless peaceful resolution or at least co-existence is part of a government's motivation the problem is likely only to get worse.

If the Chinese government can be called "criminal" because it encouraged or permitted the protests (but not the violence), then shouldn't the Japanese government also be called "criminal" for taking the action that invites the protests? That leap of logic seems a bit far-fetched.

If one accepts (and not all posters do) that the government has encouraged or permitted protests that have overtly race hate messages - "Kill all the Japs and Yanks etc" - it doesn't seem like a leap of logic at all to say that some responsibility for criminal acts should be borne by the govt.

If there govt here permitted protests with Kill the Chinese signs and then intervened only minimally if the uyoko began storming Chinese shops in Ikebukuro or Yokohama there would be an absolute outcry. (very justifiably). Allowing state to state matters to degenerate into mob attacks ( I realise the mobs were a tiny minority) targeting individuals and businesses is inexcusable. And the motives for allowing it, should be analyzed IMO.

Delegations are nothing new. I wish I could be optimistic. The domestic situation in Japan, coupled with the inaction of the Chinese govt. over the riots leave don't give much cause for it at the moment.

[gato]

If one accepts (and not all posters do) that the government has encouraged or permitted protests that have overtly race hate messages - "Kill all the Japs and Yanks etc" - it doesn't seem like a leap of logic at all to say that some responsibility for criminal acts should be borne by the govt.

Are you saying that because the government didn't censor speech, therefore it should be responsible for the violence incited by the speech? If you are saying it is a responsiblity of the goverment to censor speech, then where do you draw the line? Does it matter that the "Kill all the Japs and Yanks etc" were only used in the figurative sense. How many Japanese and Americans have been killed in the protests? I don't believe there have been any.

I know that the Chinese government has a double standard when it comes to censoring speech, but should critics of the Chinese government also adopt a double standard?

I would only attribute responsibility to the government if it encouraged the violence or permitted the violence. Permitting figurative violent speech isn't enough to blame the government for me. But if, say, a group of Japanese tourists were caught in a protest, and the protesters started yelling "Kills the Japs" and the police did nothing, then the government should bear responsiblity.

This is quite an astonishing thing to hear. The motivations on both sides are critical to understanding and resolving differences. In the case of Japan, Ishihara's motives are quite clearly to assert himself, to create distractions and problems for the ruling DPJ, and to advance a nationalist cause that he believes in. His views largely align with, though are more extreme than Shinzo Abe.

It's not just the right-wing politicians who should bear responsiblity. Japan is a democracy. These politicians enjoy widespread support. There is a lot of blame to go around. We are really talking about the majority of Japanese voters who support these politicians vs the minority of Chinese involved in violent protests.

[tokyo_girl]

It's not just the right-wing politicians who should bear responsiblity. Japan is a democracy. These politicians enjoy widespread support. There is a lot of blame to go around. We are really talking about the majority of Japanese voters who support these politicians vs the minority of Chinese involved in violent protests.

I totally agree. The nationalists don't represent majority view, but Japanese voters are very detached from the political process. It is quite understandable that it seems like a majority view from outside.

It is very unfortunate but the protests are helping to shift the average Japanese person's view to the right. I think that it's fair to say even among Japanese who have been staunch China supporters. If you try to see the protests with Japanese eyes - people see the mob attacks - on Japanese shops, property, consular offices, cars, products - as being sanctioned by the Chinese govt. because they are not being taken seriously. Given that perception, it's not surprising there is a defensively, aggressive nationalistic response. I am dismayed by Shinzo Abe's election and am dismayed by the hawks in the DPJ - but the riots don't give the moderates in the Japanese govt. much to work with...

As for the difference between figurative and literal, I can't really comment as the little Chinese I did know has evaporated. That said though, I would be extremely distressed to see kill foreigner signs here, or anywhere else, whether or not it was literal of figurative. I am quite comfortable with hate speech being a restriction on freedom of speech. There was a sign at a protest in Sydney recently about anyone who disrespects Mohammed should be beheaded. It was reported but strongly criticised - by Muslim groups as well as the media.

The fact that the media in China has been reporting hate speak unproblematised and that curbs on mob violence were sends out a strong message of antagonism at a government level. I don't see a double standard in believing hate speech should not be sanctioned by governments.

Which returns me to the point I was making before - that the moderates in Japan would have a stronger position if the Chinese government seemed to be more sympathetic to the victims of attack.

I am still curious though about opinions on the Chinese govt. motivation for allowing the protests to take the course that they took.

[Kenny同志]

It's not just the right-wing politicians who should bear responsiblity. Japan is a democracy. These politicians enjoy widespread support. There is a lot of blame to go around. We are really talking about the majority of Japanese voters who support these politicians vs the minority of Chinese involved in violent protests.

I totally agree. The nationalists don't represent majority view, but Japanese voters are very detached from the political process. It is quite understandable that it seems like a majority view from outside.

Are you suggesting that the elected candidates in Japan are those who get the fewest votes?

It is very unfortunate but the protests are helping to shift the average Japanese person's view to the right. I think that it's fair to say even among Japanese who have been staunch China supporters. If you try to see the protests with Japanese eyes - people see the mob attacks - on Japanese shops, property, consular offices, cars, products - as being sanctioned by the Chinese govt. because they are not being taken seriously. Given that perception, it's not surprising there is a defensively, aggressive nationalistic response. I am dismayed by Shinzo Abe's election and am dismayed by the hawks in the DPJ - but the riots don't give the moderates in the Japanese govt. much to work with..

You must have missed reports [source one, two, three] on the arrests of violent protesters.

Also please be aware of the fact that some Chinese companies, schools and restaurants were also attacked in Japan [

video]. What was the motivation on Japan's side to allow these attacks to happen?

As for the difference between figurative and literal, I can't really comment as the little Chinese I did know has evaporated. That said though, I would be extremely distressed to see kill foreigner signs here, or anywhere else, whether or not it was literal of figurative. I am quite comfortable with hate speech being a restriction on freedom of speech. There was a sign at a protest in Sydney recently about anyone who disrespects Mohammed should be beheaded. It was reported but strongly criticised - by Muslim groups as well as the media.

The fact that the media in China has been reporting hate speak unproblematised and that curbs on mob violence were sends out a strong message of antagonism at a government level. I don't see a double standard in believing hate speech should not be sanctioned by governments.

It would be too much for people to expect the Chinese media to say thanks to the Japanese government for nationalising the islands “in good faith”. I also believe that the appearance of a “Kill China” banner in a recent anti-China protest in Japan sends out a strong message of bitter hatred against Chinese at levels of both the government and the grassroots.

Which returns me to the point I was making before - that the moderates in Japan would have a stronger position if the Chinese government seemed to be more sympathetic to the victims of attack.

I am still curious though about opinions on the Chinese govt. motivation for allowing the protests to take the course that they took.

Police have been arresting violent protesters; they could not round them up and shoot them.

Also,I’d like to ask, what was the motivation of the Japanese government for allowing the hate-inciting racist banners?

@Roddy

Sorry, Roddy, I was a bit emotional again.

[gougou]

If you are saying it is a responsiblity of the goverment to censor speech, then where do you draw the line?

This may be a difficult question, but that alone doesn't make the point invalid. There are many countries that have restrictions on free speech. In Germany, for instance, there are laws against "incitement of popular hatred", which I suppose would apply in this case. (see here: http://en.wikipedia....Volksverhetzung).

I don't think I can quite agree with the concept of figurative calls for ethnic slaughter, and I don't think the government should only intervene after there have been first casualties.

On the double standards regarding freedom of speech in China, I quite enjoyed this post:

Another officer, middle-aged, also encouraged me to join the parade.

“Can I shout ‘Punishment for corruption?” I inquired.

“No, you can’t!” said the middle-aged officer, who had suddenly turned serious.

“Only slogans concerning Diaoyu Islands are allowed,” a younger officer said.

Overall, I think both of the governments are painting themselves into a corner of the room with surprising determinedness, making it harder and harder for both sides to back out of their positions. Continuing deferment of the issue, or even a joint development, seem to be getting further out of reach. Quite worrying indeed.

PS: Props to kenny2006woo for sticking with the discussion for so long, and for providing an interesting, different point of view on these issues. It is not easy to be the only one arguing for one's side, and it certainly doesn't help when the same point is being made over and over again by occasional posters who didn't follow the thread. Taking all this into account, you're doing a good job at not becoming too emotional ;-)

[Kenny同志]

Thank you Gougou for the kind words but I'd like to make it clear that I wasn't partial to the Chinese government; I was just trying to be fair and objective.

[studychinese]

Gato, if the government runs the newspaper and television, and runs news encouraging rioting, how could not doing that be considered 'censorship'? It would simply be a choice by the government not to encourage riots. The presence of police among the rioters is also disturbing - when attacking shops police did not intervene, but according to reports, when the crowd tried to attack a communist party office, plain clothes officers made arrests.

Remember the Tiananmen Square incident? The genesis of that was in protests against African students dating Chinese women. No kidding. http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=138

[imron]

Are you suggesting that the elected candidates in Japan are those who get the fewest votes?

I'm not sure how it is for Japan, but depending on voter turnout rates, it is actually possibly for someone with a minority of support among the population to be elected. For example, say there was a 60% turnout rate of voters, and the party who won only needed 51% of that number to win the election. That would mean they only need the support of 30.6% of the total voting age population. Depending on the way the election is determined, it is also possible for a candidate with a smaller proportion of total votes to win the election, see for example the 2000 US election, where GW Bush got 47.87% of the popular vote compared to Al Gore's 48.38%. This was on voter turnout of 51.21%, meaning that only 24.51% of the voting age population supported GW Bush in the election, but he still became president.

Anyway, as I mentioned, I'm not sure what the situation is like in Japan, however low turnout rates tend to skew the results towards groups with strongly held political views, so in those situations you are more likely to have people elected based on strongly held, but minority opinions.

I'm not saying this is what happened in Ishihara's case, just demonstrating how it can be possible.